NESARGI, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal, the appellant who has been convicted for offences under Ss. 302 and 201 IPC. by the Sessions Judge, Hassan in SC. No. 7 of 1969, challenges the correctness and legality of the conviction and sentence passed on him. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under S. 302 IPC. and rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under S. 201 IPC. The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE few facts put forward by the prosecution are that the appellant dyavegowda' had married one Ramamma, sister of Ningegowda pw. 1. The relationship between Ramamma and the appellant were not cordial. The appellant suspected illicit intimacy between his wife Ramamma and Sannappagowda, PW. 3. Ramamma used to leave the appellant and go to places of different relatives without taking the permission of the appellant. It is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant was not treating ramamma properly and was not even providing food and raiment adequately. Ramamma had complained of all these acts of the appellant to the members of the village panchayat on certain occasions. It is the case of the prosecution that PW. 1 and his brother Thammegowda came across certain facts and circumstances which aroused their suspicion about the whereabouts of Ramamma. They questioned the appellant and the appellant did not give them any satisfactory answers as to where Ramamma had gone and kept silent. They ultimately called the appellant on one occasion and asked him to produce Ramamma and arranged along with others to make the appellant produce Ramamma within three days. He was not able to produce Ramamma. Then PW. 1 and his brother Thammegowda took the appellant towards Goddu villagge. They were all along asking the appellant as to where Ramamma was and what he had done with her. It is further the case of the prosecution that when they were on 28-10-68 proceeding from Kongally to Goddu village, and were passing by Kollahalli village where the younger brother of the appellant was residing, the appellant went saying that he would go to his brother's house and come back. After some time the appellant came back along with his brother and joined PW. 1 and his brother. After some time the appellant came back along with his brother and joined PW. 1 and his brother. Then the party proceeded further and on the way the appellant told PW. 1 and his brother that he had given a blow with a club on Ramamma and she fell down and he dragged her body upto a tree (Sadlemara) and there chopped off her head and took the body to Syed Beary's cardamom garden and buried it in a pit dug by him by means of a 'matchu'. PW. 1 and his brother asked the appellant why the appellant had done so and he stated that Ramamma used to go to thambalageri village without his consent and against his wishes and hence he followed her and assaulted her with a club. After the appellant made this confessional statement to PW. l and his brother, the party proceeded to Kongally village where PW. 1 informed one Ramegowda, PW. 5, a member of the village panchayat. Then the party proceeded to the police patil Ramegowda, PW. 4 where PW. l and his brother informed the facts to PW. 4. It is also the case of the prosecution that PW. 4, Ramegowda in his turn questioned the appellant and the appellant narrated the very same facts and then the appellant produced the jewels MOs. 3 to 7 and a chopper mo. 9. Thereafter, PW. 4 wrote his report, Ex. P. 5. He also mentioned therein that the appellant had produced the above mentioned articles. PW. 4 sent Ex. P. 5 through Kulavadi to the police station. That was received by the Sub-Inspector, Muni Nanjappa, PW. 17 at 2-30 P. M. on 28-10-1968. It may be stated that it is on that day the appellant made the confessional statement and produced the above mentioned articles. PW. 17 went to the spot. By that time, the appellant, according to the prosecution, had already informed and shown to PW. 1 and his brother, pws. 4 and 5 and others the place where he had bunied the dead body, and so they had posted persons to watch that place. Thereafter, T. Sundara raju, Circle Inspector of Police PW. 18 received the report in the morning of 31-10-68 and then he proceeded to the village where according to PW. 18, PW. 4 produced the articles MOs. 3 to 7 and 9 and the statement of the accused Ex. Thereafter, T. Sundara raju, Circle Inspector of Police PW. 18 received the report in the morning of 31-10-68 and then he proceeded to the village where according to PW. 18, PW. 4 produced the articles MOs. 3 to 7 and 9 and the statement of the accused Ex. P. 1 recorded by him on 28-10-1968. Afer completing the investigation, PW. 18, submitted the chargesheet. ( 3 ) IN regard to proof of the murder of Ramamma, the prosecution has placed reliance on the finding of a skeleton of a female at a place called syed Beary's cardamom garden and pointed out by the appellant. Over that skeleton were found a red saree MO. 1 and a blouse MO. 2. The professor of Forensic Medicine has opined that the skeleton was of a female and that the age of that female might have been 18 to 22 years and that he could not state whether death was due to any unnatural cause. He found a cut at fourth cervical vertebra. He was not able to state whether it was ante-mortem or not. PW. 1 and his brother, of course, have identified mos. 1 and 2 as belonging to their sister. It is on the basis of these facts that the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has satisfactorily established that the skeleton that was found must be that of Ramamma, wife of the appellant. We are not satistied that such a conclusion flows from these tacts. PW. 1 and his brother cannot be regarded as witnesses competent to identify the saree and the blouse that are alleged to have been found on the skeleton on that day. There is no evidence produced by the prosecution as to when Ramamma was last seen and whether Ramamma at that time was wearing MOs. 1 and 2. It is available in the evidence of PW. 1 that Ramamma was aged about 30 to 35 years. The age of Ramamma does not tally with the age of the person on whom the Professor of Forensic Medicine conducted the examination. Under these circumstances, it has to be held that the prosecution has not satisfactorily established that the skeleton found buried in Syed Beary's cardamom garden must be that of Ramamma, wife of the appellant. The age of Ramamma does not tally with the age of the person on whom the Professor of Forensic Medicine conducted the examination. Under these circumstances, it has to be held that the prosecution has not satisfactorily established that the skeleton found buried in Syed Beary's cardamom garden must be that of Ramamma, wife of the appellant. ( 4 ) IN proof of the fact that this appellant is the person who murdered ramamma, the prosecution has placed reliance on the alleged extra judicial confession made by the appellant to PW. 1 and his younger brother, the confession made by the appellant to PW. 4, the Police Patil in the presence of PW. 6, Thammegowda, and production of MOs. 3 to 7 and 9 by the appellant. The prosecution has also placed reliance on the facts that mammalian blood was traced on the ear ring and the nose ring mos. 4 and 5 respectively. Lastly, reliance is also placed on the discovery of the skeleton at the instance of the appellant. ( 5 ) WE are constrained to observe at the outset that the learned Sessions judge has shown blissful ignorance of the provisions of Ss. 24 and 25 of the Indian Evidence Act while dealing with the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant before PW. 1, i. e. , on the way to Kongally. The learned Sessions Judge has, after taking note of the fact that in his statement before police PW. 1 had stated as per Ex. D. 1 and Ex. D. 2 that he and his brother compelled the accused to give the information about Ramamma and that they, in fact, promised the appellant that they will not take any action and thereafter secured the confession from the appellant, observed as follows:"both Exs. D. 1 and D. 2 have a bearing not on the confession made in PW. 6's house, but the confession made near Kallahally. Assuming for the sake of argument that he forced the accused orally and gave him promise, I do not think that the confession said to have been made by the accused is in any way vitiated, because an extra judicial confession cannot be placed on the same footing, as the confession of an accused person under S. 164 Cr. P. C. before a Magistrate. P. C. before a Magistrate. It is such confession which would be vitiated if it is got made by any inducement or threat, or promise, etc. Here the confession has been made by the accused to his own brothers-in-law who might have compelled him orally and promised to him that they would not take any action against him, if he were to make a confession. "it is a well established principle that a confession can be acted upon by courts only if it is a genuine one and the Court is satisfied that it is voluntary and that it does not appear to have been brought about by inducement, threat or promise as contemplated by S. 24 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court has, in a recent decision in Thimma, v. State mysore, AIR 1971 SC. 1871 , ruled accordingly. It is observed therein as follows :"an unambiguous confession, if admissible in evidence and free from suspicion of falsity is a valuable piece of evidence possessing a high probative force. But in the process of proof of a confession the court must be satisfied that it is voluntary, that it does not appear to be the result of inducement, threat or promise as contemplated by the section and the surrounding circumstances do not indicate that it is inspired by some improper or collateral consideration suggesting that it may not be true. For this purpose the Court must scrutinise all the relevant factors, such as, the person to whom the confession was made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made and finally the actual words. " ( 6 ) EXS. D. 1 and D. 2 are the portions of the statement of PW. 1 made before Police during investigation. These read to show that he stated therein though he has denied while in the Sessions Court that he and his brother Thammegowda forced the accused to tell them the truth as to where their sister Ramamma was and that both of them gave the accused promise that they would not take any action. It is therefore, clear that not only did they compel the appellant to make confessional statement, but also promised immunity to him from further action. In the result, we are clearly of the opinion that the confession alleged to have been made by the appellant to PW. It is therefore, clear that not only did they compel the appellant to make confessional statement, but also promised immunity to him from further action. In the result, we are clearly of the opinion that the confession alleged to have been made by the appellant to PW. 1 and his brother Thammegowda cannot be acted upon against the appellant. The appellant had, at the earliest opportunity, retracted from his confession. ( 7 ) THE circumstances surrounding this confession are depicted in the evidence of PWs. 1, 4, 5 and 6. As already pointed out, it is the case of the prosecution that PW. 1 and his brother took the appellant and his brother to the village called Kongally, where they informed PW. 5 about the confessional statement made by the appellant and the party contacted the police patil PW. 4, where the police patil was also informed and who in his turn questioned the appellant. The appellant, it is said, produced mos. 3 to 7 and a chopper MO. 9. All this transpired on 28-10-1968. It is manifest that the confession alleged to have been made by the appellant to the police patil PW. 4 is nothing but a repetition of what the appellant had, as alleged, stated to PW1. It is to our mind clear in these circumstances that no importance can be attached to this confession alleged to have been made by the appellant, because it has already been seen that the confession statement alleged to have been made by the appellant, a little earlier, to PW. 1 and his brother was due to the compulsion exercised by pw. 1 and his brother and promise of immunity given by PW. 1 and his brother to the appellant. Moreover, the confession is made to a village Police Patel. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly lays down that a confession made to a Police Officer cannot be proved against a person accused of any offence. A Police Officer is defined as follows in s. 2 (16) of the Mysore Police Act, 1963:" (16) 'police Officer' means any member of the police force appointed or deemed to be appointed under this Act and includes a special or an additional police officer appointed under this Act and includes. . . . . . . . . A Police Officer is defined as follows in s. 2 (16) of the Mysore Police Act, 1963:" (16) 'police Officer' means any member of the police force appointed or deemed to be appointed under this Act and includes a special or an additional police officer appointed under this Act and includes. . . . . . . . . " "section 129 of the very Act lays down that the village police shall consist of a police patel and such village police officers of such grades as may be prescribed. " it is hence seen that a police patel is a member of the village police force. S. 130 of the said Act lays down that "130. The administration of the village police in each district shall, under the general control and direction of the Government be exercised by the District Magistrate. "further on S. 132 of the said Act provides that in each village village police shall be appointed by the Dist. Magistrate subject to such rules which may be made by the Government in that behalf, and further that the District magistrate shall appoint in writing a person as the Police Patel. ( 8 ) THE above provisions make it abundantly clear that a village police patel is a member of ihe police force and that he is appointed by the District Magistrate under the provisions of the Mysore Police Act. Therefore we have no hesitation in holding that a police patel is a police officer within the definition of the said terms found in the Mysore Police act, 1963. S 133 of the same Act lavs down the duties of Police Patel as follows:"133. Therefore we have no hesitation in holding that a police patel is a police officer within the definition of the said terms found in the Mysore Police act, 1963. S 133 of the same Act lavs down the duties of Police Patel as follows:"133. Duties of Police Patel - The Police Patel shall, subject to the orders of the District Magistrate, (i) act under the orders of the authorised officer and within whose jurisdiction the village is situated; (ii) furnish such authorised officer with anv returns or information called for and keep him informed as to the state of crime and all matters connected with the Village Police; (iii) afford all police officers every assistance in his power when called upon by them for assistance in the performance of their duties; (iv) obey and execute all orders issued to him by a Magistrate or a Police Officer; (v) collect and communicate to the Police Officer information affecting the public peace; (vi) detect and bring offenders in the village to justice: (vii) arrest persons whom he has reason to believe to have committed cognizable offences; and (viii) prevent within the limits of his village, as far as possible, the commission of offences and public nuisances. " ( 9 ) THE above mentioned duties of a police patel are no doubt, the powers exercisable by a police officer. In view of these reasons, we hold that a police patel, especially after comine into force of the Mysore Police Act, 1963, is a police officer and as such a confession made to him is hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act. ****** ( 10 ) IN view of these suspicious surrounding circumstances also, no evidentiary value can be attached to any of the confessions alleged to have been made by the appellant. * * * * ( 11 ) IN view of the foregoing reasons, we find it impossible to agree with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Session Judge. We therefore allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant. The appellant is acquitted and directed to be released and set at liberty forthwith. --- *** --- .